The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHRISTOPHER PHILLIPS CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-65
NICHOLAS BOULET, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendants’ unopposed motion to remand.1 For the
following reasons, the Court grants the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Nicholas Boulet, filed suit in state court relating to a car
accident allegedly involving himself and defendant Nicholas Boulet.2
Plaintiff listed Nicholas Boulet, Tami Boulet, Farmers Insurance Exchange,
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as defendants.3 On
January 8, 2024, Nicholas Boulet, Tami Boulet, and Farmers Insurance
Exchange filed a petition for removal, asserting this Court had jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.4 In support of their assertion of diversity
1 R. Doc. 29.
2 R. Doc. 1-4 at 1.
3 Id. State Farm has since been dismissed as a party. R. Doc. 21.
4 R. Doc. 1.
jurisdiction, defendants stated that the domiciles of Nicholas Boulet, Tami
Boulet, and Farmers Insurance Exchange are California, and that Plaintiff’s
domicile is Louisiana.5 Defendants also asserted that the amount in
controversy requirement was met.6 On December 11, 2024, Farmers
Insurance Exchange filed its Corporate Disclosure Statement, stating that it
“is a foreign insurer and corporation, incorporated in 1928, domiciled . . .
[in] California, and a citizen of the State of California with its principal place
of business in the State of California.”7 On April 14, 2025, Defendants moved
the Court to remand this action to state court, providing no rationale for
remand.8 This Court denied the motion without prejudice and instructed the
parties to resubmit their motion stating the grounds for remand.9
Defendants submitted a new motion for remand, arguing that complete
diversity does not exist, without providing information as to when diversity
ceased to exist.10 The Court ordered11 defendants to submit supplemental
5 Id. at ¶¶ 17-20.
6 Id. at ¶¶ 8-16.
7 R. Doc. 26.
8 R. Doc. 27.
9 R. Doc. 28.
10 R. Doc. 29.
11 R. Doc. 30.
information, which defendants did.12 The Court now considers the motion
and the supplemental information.
II. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Unless a federal statute expressly provides otherwise, a defendant may
remove a civil action filed in state court to federal court if the federal court
would have had original jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The
removing party “bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists
and that removal was proper.” Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 719 F.3d
392, 397 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,
276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002)). In assessing whether removal was
appropriate, the Court is guided by the principle, grounded in notions of
comity and the recognition that federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction, that “removal statute[s] should be strictly construed in favor of
remand.” Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723 (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc.,
200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).
For diversity jurisdiction to exist, the amount in controversy must
exceed $75,000, and there must be complete diversity between plaintiffs and
defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
12 R. Doc. 31.
437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978). “For cases removed from state court, jurisdiction
must exist at the time of removal.” Moss v. Princip, 913 F. 3d 508, 514 (5th
Cir. 2017). The Fifth Circuit has found that “an unincorporated association
is considered to have the citizenship of its members.” Royal Ins. Co. of Am.
v. Quinn-L Cap. Co., 3 F.3d 877, 882 (5th Cir.). And courts in the Fifth
Circuit have held that insurance exchanges are unincorporated associations
for the purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. See Qadeer v.
Farmers Ins. Exchange, 2010 WL 3743654 at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2010).
Defendants assert that Farmers Insurance Exchange is an entity owned
by its policyholders with the citizenship of its policyholders.13 Defendants
further allege that Farmers had ceased writing policies in Louisiana on April
27, 2014, but returned to writing policies in Louisiana on March 8, 2021.14
Because the case was removed on April 14, 2025, the Court finds that
Farmers Insurance Exchange was a citizen of Louisiana for diversity
purposes at the time of removal. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
this case. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.
13 R. Doc. 29-1 at 2.
14 R. Doc. 31 at 2. Defendants allege that they were aware of the cessation
but not the return to writing policies in Louisiana when they removed
the case. Thus, according to defendants, they believed there was
complete diversity at the time of removal.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants unopposed
motion for remand. This action is hereby remanded to the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, for further proceedings.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __16th_ day of July, 2025.
hernk Varner
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE